Conciseness

There is no padding or teaching of concepts Claude already knows — every sentence is operational. However, the continuation-reuse rule is stated redundantly ("优先使用同次结果的 agent.continuation / data.nextAction" appears in both the SDK entry paragraph and the post-advance paragraph), and the 'first entry / agent switch / context recovery, otherwise reuse' pattern recurs several times, so it could be tightened. Efficient with minor trim opportunities matches anchor 4, not anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

The body supplies copy-paste-ready CLI commands with flags for every state transition ("comet state propose-build <change-name> --file <configuration-json> --confirmed", "comet guard <change-name> build --apply -- <program> [args...]", "comet state complete-build <change-name> --session <builder-execution-ref>") plus concrete routing and recovery instructions. It stays at anchor 4 rather than 5 because the substantive content of steps 1–3 is delegated to the external reference ("按 SDK 方法参考的 Build 章节") and details such as the temp-configuration JSON format are unspecified — minor gaps, not vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

The four full.build.* steps are clearly sequenced as a numbered list with explicit step IDs, and validation checkpoints are explicit: guard --apply "重新校验当前任务、配置、工作区和证据" before real checks, tasks checked off only "任务实际完成且审查合格后". Feedback loops are spelled out for error recovery — "失败后按返回的当前 Build Action 修复并重新验证", "拒绝后从新配置重新提案", and interrupted receipts are reconciled rather than re-executed. This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops) and exceeds anchor 4's 'most checkpoints present'.

Progressive Disclosure

The file acts as an overview/router with clearly signaled, conditionally loaded, one-level-deep references ([阶段入口与恢复](../comet-classic/reference/sdk-methods.md#阶段入口与恢复), [Compat 操作](reference/compat.md), [变更说明](../comet/reference/change-walkthrough.md)). It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because references span multiple sibling skills (../comet-classic/, ../comet/) with one unpathed reference ("按 decision-point.md 等待确认"), no bundle files exist in this workspace to verify referenced paths, and dense paragraph walls within the SDK section impede easy navigation.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Classic 任务") and lists three actions ("制定计划、实施并验收" — plan, implement, acceptance-check), but the verbs are process-generic rather than operationally concrete, and coverage is incomplete relative to the build workflow the skill actually drives. This matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive'); it falls short of anchor 4 because the gaps exceed 'minor' and the actions lack the concreteness of 'extracts text, fills forms, converts pages to images'.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: what ("制定计划、实施并验收 Classic 任务") and when ("在用户调用 /comet-build，或 Classic Runtime 进入 Build、返回 Build 修复时使用") with concrete trigger phrases. This clearly matches anchor 5 — the when-clause is more explicit and specific than anchor 4's example ('Use when working with PDF files'), so it is not the level below.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural triggers are present: "在用户调用 /comet-build，或 Classic Runtime 进入 Build、返回 Build 修复时使用" — the slash command /comet-build, Build-phase entry, and return-to-Build fixes. Good keyword coverage but missing common variations or synonyms (e.g., 构建阶段, 'build phase'), matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description occupies a clear niche — the Comet Classic Runtime Build phase — with distinct triggers: a unique slash command (/comet-build) and phase-specific routing ("Classic Runtime 进入 Build"). Minimal conflict risk with other skills, matching anchor 5 ('clear niche with distinct triggers').